Wednesday, October 01, 2014

The Corrosive Power of Political Correctness

The politically correct fear of affronting
Muslims is so infectious and poisonous it will lead a man who takes an
otherwise commendable and irrefutable position on Islam to make a fallacious
distinction between Islam and its allegedly “militant” adherents and
practitioners.

In one sentence, apparently calculated to
mollify Muslims and Islamic states of all stripes, including ISIS, Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated:

It occurs in the fourth paragraph of Netanyahu’s
speech to the UN on September 29th, 2014.

It’s
not militants. It’s not Islam. It’s militant Islam. Typically, its
first victims are other Muslims, but it spares no one. Christians, Jews,
Yazidis, Kurds – no creed, no faith, no ethnic group is beyond its sights. And
it’s rapidly spreading in every part of the world. You know the famous American
saying: “All politics is local”? For the militant Islamists, “All politics is
global.” Because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world….

Robert Spencer of Jihad
Watch called the Prime Minister’s speech “brilliant.” Indeed, it is that in
many respects. But that one sentence has dimmed its brilliance with that single
corrosive politically correct statement.

That single sentence undercuts the clarity
and force of the rest of his speech. I won’t be the only one to have noticed it
and measured its import on the balance of the speech and Netanyahu’s position
on the threat of ISIS, Hamas, and all the other terrorist gangs he names. Our
enemies will have noticed it and evaluated it and reached the same conclusion:
He has pulled back from a blanket condemning of Islam root, trunk, branch and
twig.

So when it comes to
their ultimate goals, Hamas is ISIS and ISIS is Hamas.

And what they share
in common, all militant Islamists share in common: • Boko Haram in Nigeria; •
Ash-Shabab in Somalia; • Hezbollah in Lebanon; • An-Nusrah in Syria; • The Mahdi
Army in Iraq; • And the Al-Qaeda branches in Yemen, Libya, the Philippines,
India and elsewhere.

I really never expected Netanyahu to repeat
the sentiment oft expressed by a political enemy of his, President Barack
Obama, that the West is not at war with Islam.

Not to mention the supposedly “lone wolf”
jihadists in America and Europe, who have their own personal ways of waging
jihad and becoming “martyrs”: beheadings in Oklahoma and New York and London,
bombings in Boston, the Ft. Hood massacre, honor-killings, sex grooming gangs, sex
slavery brothels, female genital mutilation, anti-Semitism, and etc.

However: “Militant” Islam is “radical” Islam
is “extremist” Islam is “moderate” Islam and however else one wishes to style Islam.
Sugar-coating Islam by divorcing it from itself, from its fundamental nature
and political ends, isn’t going to bring about any kind of peace except that of
the graveyard.

It still reads like the ubiquitous,
off-the-rack denial uttered by Barack
Obama and other politicians and pundits that Islam
isn’t evil at root, that it’s a religion of “peace.”But, in whose time? Prime Minister Neville
Chamberlain waved a piece of paper and proclaimed it heralded “peace in our
time.” What he got was war, because Hitler had his own time schedule, and it
didn’t include “peace” until he was finished conquering Europe.

Like a broken record, Obama told the UN
General Assembly on September 24th:

…[W]e have
reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam.
Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a
sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and
them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the
fabric of our country.

Again, Islam can’t be anything but “militant.” Was there a difference
between Nazism and “militant” Nazism? Between Communism and “militant”
Communism? The distinctions are as artificial and delusionary for those
totalitarian systems as they are for Islam. It’s one and the same. Netanyahu continued,
making sure he was speaking of “militant” Islam:

Some are radical
Sunnis, some are radical Shi’ites. Some want to restore a pre-medieval
caliphate from the 7th century. Others want to trigger the apocalyptic return
of an imam from the 9th century. They operate in different lands, they target
different victims and they even kill each other in their quest for supremacy.
But they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever expanding
enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance – Where
women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are
subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone
can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.

Ladies and
Gentlemen, Militant Islam’s ambition to dominate the world seems mad. But so
too did the global ambitions of another fanatic ideology that swept to power
eight decades ago.

The Nazis believed
in a master race. The militant Islamists believe in a master faith. They just
disagree about who among them will be the master… of the master faith. That’s
what they truly disagree about. Therefore, the question before us is whether
militant Islam will have the power to realize its unbridled ambitions.

Yes, because exempting Islam from complete
repudiation and moral judgment empowers Islam to continue its mass depredations
– against Israel, against the U.S., against Europe – against the world. Netanyahu’s
qualifier was completely unnecessary and represents the intellectual and moral
virus that is guaranteed to undermine any short-range military action against
it and render such action futile.

An instance of how virulent the politically
correct fear of “offending” Muslims can affect the minds of those faced with
the indisputable evidence of Islamic terrorism: the Oklahoma prosecutor will not suggest that Alton Nolan’s beheading
of Colleen Hufford at Vaughn Foods in Moore was Islamic jihad or a terrorist
act, but as merely the commission of first
degree murder. In his Washington Post article of September 29th, “After
a beheading in Oklahoma, debate over what to call it,” Mark Berman wrote:

Authorities have not called the Oklahoma beheading terrorism, instead
saying that it appears to be a case of workplace violence. Some commentators
and politicians have disagreed with this assessment. Television host Joe
Scarborough said this was due to “political correctness.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), who
is considering another presidential campaign in 2016, told Fox News that this
appears to be “an act of violence that is associated with terrorism.”

Charging an individual who has committed a
crime is the proper action to take.
All crimes committed domestically in the U.S. in the name of Islam should be
treated as crimes, divorced from an individual’s motive. Secular law should
discount a criminal’s reason for committing a crime. That in itself, in
practical terms, would serve to deflate the importance of any religious
sanctioning of the crime. Western secular law is in direct conflict with
Islamic Sharia law, which should be banned from all levels of America jurisprudence,
and also from law enforcement.

Charging Alton Nolan with first degree
murder and aggravated assault – as crimes – will serve to focus on Islam as an
incubatory ideology that sanctions crime, and also serve to remind prosecutors
and others in the judiciary and in Congress that Islam is our mortal enemy.

An Oklahoma man
apparently uttered Arabic words during an attack in which he allegedly severed
a co-worker's head, and had "some sort of infatuation with
beheadings," but the killing appeared to have more to do with the man's
suspension from his job than his recent conversion to Islam, a prosecutor said
Tuesday. Alton Nolen, 30, could face the death penalty after being charged with
first-degree murder in the attack Thursday that authorities say appears to have
been an act of revenge for a co-worker's complaint that got him suspended.

The FBI also is
investigating the attack, given Nolen's interest in beheadings and a recent
surge in Middle East violence. "There was some sort of infatuation with
beheadings. It seemed to be related to his interest in killing someone that
way," Cleveland County Prosecutor Greg Mashburn said. "Other than
that, it seemed to be related to his being suspended earlier in the day."

…"It had more
to do with race rather than trying to convert people," Mashburn said. He
said there was a "back and forth with Ms. Johnson and that led her to make
a complaint to the HR department."

Apparently, not publically recognizing Nolan’s crime as an act of Islamic
terrorism – despite Nolan’s record of proselytizing Islam, having his body tattooed
with Islamic symbols, and loading his Face Book page with Islamic materials – is
the safer way of not being tarred with the brush of “Islamophobia.”

End states that support, finance, and encourage
Islamic terrorism. That will mean taking out at least one major sponsor of Islam
terrorism, Iran or Saudi Arabia, which are at the top of the list. Small fry like
Qatar and the U.A.E. and Libya and Yemen will submit to the West – and not the
other way around.

I see this evasive technique more and more in the press now days."There was some sort of infatuation with beheadings."Translation: His beheading of the lady was only a personal, subjective choice and not connected in any way to some commandments in the bible of his chosen religion Islam so move along, nothing to see here.